Re: [Libvir] Preliminary patch to support remote driver / libvirtd

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 20:06 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: Isn't that what the existing proxy does? Are we talking about dumping that? (Which reminds me, we can and should auth by uid with the UNIX transport) Yep, agreed - you can mitigate the problem by continuing to handle new requests once started and hang around for a time when the last client disconnects ... but bleh. (Total tangent - since xinetd is supposed to be a "resource conserving super-server", I wonder if you could do something where xinetd keeps a cache of TLS params and passes them to servers when they start ... that might be cool) Seriously, if you see that the code I posted *isn't* correct, then I'd like to hear it ... but I don't think you are saying that ... (I'm not being a smartass ... this code is recent and could well be buggy) Absolutely. But we're not binding to a specific address. Hence, we do only want a single socket. Or to put it another way, if you just want to bind to inaddr_any, then getaddrinfo() just complicates things. For example, on a host with IPv4 and IPv6 address configured, does make_sockets() attempt to bind an ipv6 socket to the port, or an ipv4 one, or both? I suspected it would first try ipv6, then fail at bind() with the ipv4 socket, but I had to write some test code to be sure. There's one caveat to all this - if the code is ported to a system which *requires* both an IPv4 and IPv6 socket because it doesn't allow IPv4 connections to be accepted on an IPv6 socket, then you would need two sockets. Reading: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/bind.html it suggests that's true on the various BSDs. I'd agree that if you intended to allow libvirtd to bind to specific addresses, then you'd need getaddrinfo(). But I do firmly believe that using getaddrinfo() for the inaddr_any case just makes the code obtuse and re-affirms this notion that sockets coding is somehow a black art. If you had to explain the two different versions to someone, I think the getaddrinfo() version would be harder, without being any more correct. When I was implementing IPv6 support for Vino, Uli's writeup was my starting point (along with dear old R. Stevens, RIP) ... but I preferred to seriously consider alternatives rather than just copying and pasting it. Anyhow, I never intended to get into such a rant about getaddrinfo() ... it was just a friendly suggestion :) Cheers, Mark.